IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Tr.P(C).No. 190 of 2009()
1. KAVITHA, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.SUNDARAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANOJ G.KURUP, AGED 41 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.T.BALAN
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEW JAMES
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
Tr.P.(C).NO.190 OF 2009 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
O R D E R
Petition for transfer is filed under Section 24 of the Code
of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is the wife and the respondent,
the husband. Matrimonial disputes between the spouses have
given rise to three proceedings, two at the instance of the wife
and one by the husband in two different Family Courts. Wife
has filed two petitions O.P.No.869 of 2009 and M.C.No.175 of
2009, the former for restitution of the conjugal rights and the
latter, to claim maintenance for herself and the child born out
of the wedlock, both before the Family Court, Ernakulam.
Husband has filed O.P.No.83 of 2009 seeking a decree of
divorce before the Family Court, Alappuzha. Wife seeks the
transfer of the petition filed by the husband O.P.No.83 of 2009
from the Family court, Alappuzha to the Family Court,
Ernakulam.
TPC.190/09 2
2. Notice given, the husband has entered appearance
through counsel. Parties were directed to the Mediation
Centre to examine whether there is any chance of settlement.
But the mediation efforts, it is reported, have failed. I heard
the counsel on both sides. From the submissions made, it is
noticed that the only child born out of the wedlock, a boy,
aged ten years, is under the care and custody of the mother
and is attending a school in Ernakulam. Already that child is
deprived of the love, care and affection of his father in view of
the differences of opinion and conflicts between his parents.
If the wife, mother of the child, is compelled to go over to a
Family Court situate at a far off place to defend the case
launched against her by the husband/father, no doubt, she has
either to take the child with her or leave him under the care of
some other person. Whatever be the course followed, that will
have a disastrous effect affecting the wellbeing of the child,
both physically and mentally. The interest of the child should
also require to be considered in the matter of transfer in
matrimonial proceedings. That also being taken into account,
I find the request of the wife for transfer of the petition filed
TPC.190/09 3
by the husband, which is pending as O.P.No.83 of 2009 on the
file of the Family Court, Alappuzha to the Family Court,
Ernakulam deserve sympathetic consideration. Further more,
trial of all the three cases by the same Family Court will be
advantageous to the parties as the feasibility of joint trial of
two or more cases subject to the restrictions imposed by law
can also be considered by that court. A joint trial or separate
trial of the three cases by the same court will rule out the
possibilities of conflicting decisions in these proceedings.
Taking into account all those aspects, I order for transfer of
O.P.No.83 of 2009 on the file of the Family Court, Alappuzha
to the Family court Ernakulam. The Judge, Family Court,
Alappuzha shall transmit the records of O.P.No.83 of 2009
without delay. The transferee court, on receipt of the records,
shall give notice to the parties for appearance.
It is submitted that both the spouses are deaf and dump
persons, and that the husband is employed at Alappuzha in the
Kerala Water Transport Department. So much so, if any
application is moved by the husband seeking personal
TPC.190/09 4
exemption from appearance, the court shall consider it and
pass appropriate orders so that he need be present only when
his presence is inevitable for a fair trial of the cases. Subject
to the above observations, the transfer petition is disposed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp